Gunfire-Graffiti UK

[The General]

Agree regarding the manual loading. So do you think that Nevill went downstairs to flee/phone or arm himself before the assailant? The scrape marks on the AGA suggest to me he did engage him physically, and that Nevill approached him, because he felt he had to take action knowing that at least his wife was fighting for her life.

Seems plausible. He now knows the phone is gone, he musters one last stand and basically fights for both of their lives in any way possible. He didn't get far with nothing to protect himself, as with the gunshot wounds, the life would have been ebbing out of him at that point.
As for Jeremy's state of mind at this point, I'll bet he was panicking big time, seeing Nevill somehow still coming at him. He knew would have thought his best chance to win the fight would be to shoot him again, so reloading in between the physical struggle was his priority. All my opinion, of course.
The ****ing coward.

[adam]

Bamber going downstairs first, gives Nevill the chance to stay upstairs. He can turn lights on & check on Sheila and the twins. As well as see if June was still alive. As well as check on himself and recover from the shock of what just happened.

The twins, Nevill and Sheila awake & out of bed makes things a lot harder for Bamber when he returns upstairs. Nevill can arm himself with something such as a chair or a lamp. Or even clothes which he could throw over Bamber's head to disorientate him.

Nevill would only have a couple of minutes to decide to follow Bamber downstairs. Doubtful he made that decision.

[adam]

Nevill running from a shooting Bamber would be a natural reaction.

He would have minimal time to consider that he was leaving June, Sheila & the twins. Sub conciously he would know he would be chased, which at least meant Bamber couldn't fire any more immediate shots upstairs.

What was Nevill's plan was when he got downstairs? He didn't have time to think of one.

[Truth SKR1]

Yes, I agree certainly plausible that Nevill went downstairs first, the position of the Aga mantelpiece in the kitchen and where the bullets were situated provide us additional information. If Nevill went downstairs first he obviously had an intention to do something. I do think that Jeremy wouldn't have allowed a struggle for control of the gun unless he was taking a little by surprise (in which case Jeremy came down first), or if he was trying to stop Nevill doing something such as reaching the phone or arming himself with something near the AGA. If Jeremy was right behind him and possibly even attacking his back with the rifle, almost shepherding him as he went down that would make sense to me. Any notion that Nevill ever got any significant distance ahead of Jeremy wouldn't make sense, Bamber wouldn't have allowed that.

[adam]

Interesting what he said about the roure -:


'It was a wet day when I found and cycled the route on the 04 Feb 19. The last 400 metres on the approach to White House Farm was muddy.

My mountain bike was probably better than the bike Wilkinson used and I was 63 and considering the conditions I did it in 17 minutes on approach and 18 minutes into a slight headwind on return. That was pure riding time. I stopped to take photographs.

There was only one gate to open. The route was easy and it would have been equally simple at night with the available ambient light. If Bamber used this route he was a young and fit 24 year old and the tracks would have been dry in the summer of 1985.

If he had used additional rifle magazines, he could have taken them along with any .22 rounds he had in them or loose on his person. They would have been easy to dispose.

Jeremy Bamber’s defence maintain that this route was a ridiculous exaggeration and nobody witnessed him. That might be true. I didn’t see or meet a single person on the farm track portion of the route and that was in daylight. Who saw me?'

[Truth SKR1]

The additional magazines is, of course, very possible. But the prosecution would have to establish where he got them from. Would Pargeter etc have known if specific magazines for that rifle were missing from WHF after the killings? Do you need a license to buy them? Also why would you not take these magazines
upstairs with you on a shooting spree? His arrogance may have be a factor in that granted he believed he might not need them. But I still think the scratches on the AGA suggest individual reloading of one magazine. That Nevill got close enough to grab the rifle and, however briefly, wrestle for control suggests to me that Bamber had to do more than simply slot in a new magazine. Overall, very difficult to conclude either way, perhaps.

[Nicholas]

‘Jeremy Bamber’s defence maintain that this route was a ridiculous exaggeration and nobody witnessed him’

Bamber’s defence also chose to not call Charles Marsden to given evidence?

What reason has Bamber given over the years regarding this?

And why have Bamber and his defence teams chosen to attempt to hide his violent past re the alleged drug/date rape of the female from the Chequers public house ?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11533.msg592331#msg592331

[adam]

Bamber’s defence also chose to not call Charles Marsden to given evidence?

What reason has Bamber given over the years regarding this?

And why have Bamber and his defence teams chosen to attempt to hide his violent past re the alleged drug/date rape of the female from the Chequers public house ?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11533.msg592331#msg592331

Why would the defence call Charles Marsden?

[Nicholas]

Why would the defence call Charles Marsden?

No - I asked why didn’t the defence call Charles Marsden - ‘What reasons has Bamber given over the years regarding this?’

Surely his evidence supported the prosecutions theory and part of Julie’s evidence?

What was decided in pre trial hearings regarding Marsden’s evidence?


From ‘Blood Relations’ by Roger Wilkes
‘In December 1984, Jeremy had announced that his entire family were getting together to celebrate Christimas.  This was unusual.  During a drinking session at a wine bar in Maldon, Jeremy had confided to Charles Marsden that if the farmhouse were to burn down over Christmas, everything would be his.  'I thought at the time that this was a strange thing to say,' Marsden reported, 'but didn't particularly take any notice.'

[adam]

No - I asked why didn’t the defence call Charles Marsden - ‘What reasons has Bamber given over the years regarding this?’

Surely his evidence supported the prosecutions theory and part of Julie’s evidence?

What was decided in pre trial hearings regarding Marsden’s evidence?


From ‘Blood Relations’ by Roger Wilkes
‘In December 1984, Jeremy had announced that his entire family were getting together to celebrate Christimas.  This was unusual.  During a drinking session at a wine bar in Maldon, Jeremy had confided to Charles Marsden that if the farmhouse were to burn down over Christmas, everything would be his.  'I thought at the time that this was a strange thing to say,' Marsden reported, 'but didn't particularly take any notice.'

The prosecution had the option of calling Charles Marsden. Don't know why they didn't.

[Nicholas]

The prosecution had the option of calling Charles Marsden. Don't know why they didn't.

Marsden’s evidence - especially re Bamber ‘confiding’ in him around December 1984 over the farmhouse burning down and everything being his - would have bolstered Julie’s evidence

I’d be interested to know what discussions took place in relation to Charles Marsden’s evidence and why he wasn’t called to give evidence

It’s possible the prosecution initially wanted to call him but pre trial the defence argued against this ?

From ‘Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes’
‘Stan Jones leafed through a sheaf of typewritten papers on the table in front of him.  'So,' he said, 'you know Charles Marsden?'  Jeremy said he did.  'He and I were very close a few years ago, and not so close now as I don't really see him that often.'  The detective continued to look through his papers.  'Do you remember me yesterday putting to you that Julie had said that you intended to drug the family and burn the farm down when they were all in it ?  Bamber said he remembered and that Julie was telling lies.  'You see' said Stan Jones, running a finger down one of the statements, 'Charles Marsden also says the same thing.  He says that around Christmas time last year, when all the family, your parents, Sheila and twins were there, you told him that if you burned the house down with all them in it, you'd get everything.  Is he telling lies as well?  Jeremy said he didn't remember discussing the matter with Marsden, and that he concluded that his friend was lying.  Stan Jones put the statement down on the table.  Julie's telling lies.' he said, recapping 'and he is telling lies.  For what reason? 'No comment.'

[adam]

Marsden’s evidence - especially re Bamber ‘confiding’ in him around December 1984 over the farmhouse burning down and everything being his - would have bolstered Julie’s evidence

I’d be interested to know what discussions took place in relation to Charles Marsden’s evidence and why he wasn’t called to give evidence

It’s possible the prosecution initially wanted to call him but pre trial the defence argued against this

Don't believe the defence could have stopped the prosecution calling Charles Marsden.

Maybe the prosecution considered it not worth calling Marsden regarding a short conversation with Bamber regarding one thing. The defence will just try to undermine him.

[Nicholas]

Don't believe the defence could have stopped the prosecution calling Charles Marsden.

Really - what makes you say this?

[Nicholas]

Maybe the prosecution considered it not worth calling Marsden regarding a short conversation with Bamber regarding one thing. The defence will just try to undermine him.

No doubt the defence would try to undermine him but Charles Marsden was one of the first people Bamber turned to following the murders and according to Bamber they were very close

[adam]

Really - what makes you say this?

What grounds could the defence use to prevent Marsden being called up by the prosecution?